Search results

Well basically :) Of course sewtbk misstated the original premise. (He doesn't read much Apperently). The premise was that it's very easy to accidentally misuse firearms if you don't know what you're doing, and some people should be barred from owning firearms. Safety training resolves the...

Well you can't use the 'now' figure - and it's about 2 times for Canada not 4 just FYI. We have training now so if you looked at the figures for today that's already after any lives that are going to be saved had been. So I was looking back to before the introduction of any real manditory...

Ahhh, no. That's not what you said. You said a gun rate of .002. That's not a 'percent'. That's very specific. That's the 'rate'. Except it's not the rate. So now you're going back and trying to come up with the feeble excuse of 'umm... er.... ahhh... I meant percentages all along." Funny...

There is exactly the same mistake in your numbers there was in mine. Decimal shifted by two points :) The fact that you were wrong in both cases doesn't change anything. And it was you who got your percentages wrong :) I can see how stupid you must feel doing that after making fun of someone...

"If there's been a mistake" ROFL - I still can't stop laughing at that :) Just a word of advice. Everyone makes mistakes. When you do in the future be a man about it and just own it, and be a little careful of making fun of others when they do least it come back to bite you such as it did here...

ROFLMAO :) There was a mistake sparky, as you know :) like I said, the difference between you and me is that if I make a.mistake, I admit it :) And honestly I wouldn't care except you made SUCH a fuss about me making the exact same mistake that' it's just frakkin' hilarious that you'd make...

Disney character from the latest movie I think

ROFLMAO - I was just thinking the same thing about you :) Well that does explain some things. It's no wonder you skimp on your research No, as I have said many times is that firearms safety training reduces accidents, and therefore should be manditory. See - this is what happens when you...

LOL - well fair is fair, and you're right. It should have been 100 million :) We all make mistakes, especially when doing stuff on the fly. But the main difference between you and I is that when I make a mistake and someone points it out, I say 'gee - that's a mistake' :) However - that's just...

No, you didn't. You gave an example of a system that actually wouldn't work, because it doesn't actually even address the situation we're talking about. I'm sorry - was i supposed to specifically ask for a system that actually worked? Was that what confused you? Uhhh, no, guns are more...

True enough :) Well true enough as far as that goes, and I was never happy in the slightest about the decision to remove the test challenge. I think it doesn't matter how you get the knowledge. But I do think you should have to prove you have the knowledge in some fashion. They still need to...

And as a reminder, I DID propose a method by which we could measure the effect of training. We take 20 people who've never touched a gun and 20 who just passed their course - then we run them thru a series of scenarios with guns and see which group does more things that are genuinely unsafe. If...

Yeah but it's useless for the very reason you mentioned - a very large percent (probably approaching 100 ) would have taken training either as a club requirement for non restricted (I did) or as a hunter, which was the primary reason for owning non restricteds (I did). To be of any real use...

[ Wait - how does that pertain to the situation we're talking about? Nobody went into a gun store, these are firearms that are no longer wanted, so if the person who bought them isn't around, the people who have them now never went in a store to get the background check in the first place...

Like your list? or your example of a case by case background check which isn't case by case? :) if you can, you hide it very well. Well it should be. So there you go. :) Firearms misused are extremely dangerous. Not just 'dangerous' but extremely so. Firearms are very easy to misuse if you...

You say stuff like that, yet it comes back to the same thing and you still can't provide any real example of these 'systems'. Our current licensing is 'shall issue', if they can't show a reason why you shouldn't have one, they must issue. I don't really like our current system but it's already...

Not quite. You said there was no regulation on such things. I pointed out that there is, there is regulation that allows the rcmp to track that kind of thing to see if someone is trying to make a bomb. Of course, you missed the point. That was about the fact that such things do have regulation...

Ahh - we're not tracking guns here, we're talking about possessing(owning if you prefer) them. The cops don't let dangerous people own explosives, and they don't let dangerous people own firearms. :) It's the same thing. Having a license doesn't let them track what guns you do or don't have...

But they lack the training. And frankly the cops do track items commonly used to make bombs - that's how the caught the Ottawa 12 or whatever they're called. It's not qutie that easy to make a bomb that's actually going to be lethal. Oops - forgot all that didn'tcha :) I wouldn't have a clue...

Bottles of drains have safety lids. And a kid MIGHT cut himself on a katana possibly, but the katana is not going to go off and kill his sister by accident. That actually does happen with guns. And we already have rules for 'manditory' safety lids for containers of dangerous goods, rules about...